I have restarted a CPU game one time - it's because I picked the wrong PB - I wanted to try a new one and I forgot. And I had CJ jr go down with a broken collar bone for 9 weeks in Greenerr1 in my first ever CPU game.

Anyways - I do it right - i don't skirt injuries but I would still rather play and lose to a player than pound the CPU.

But - I believe a cool clause of the sub player is that they should be forced to use the team offensive and defensive playbook. So if you are playing with the Bills - you need to use the BUF offensive and defensive playbooks. This will add a little twist - take a bite out of the sub player - they are an interim coach who is in over his head a little. It would force the sub players to expand their game a little too - keep it interesting.....

sam22smith wrote:I have restarted a CPU game one time - it's because I picked the wrong PB - I wanted to try a new one and I forgot. And I had CJ jr go down with a broken collar bone for 9 weeks in Greenerr1 in my first ever CPU game.

Anyways - I do it right - i don't skirt injuries but I would still rather play and lose to a player than pound the CPU.

But - I believe a cool clause of the sub player is that they should be forced to use the team offensive and defensive playbook. So if you are playing with the Bills - you need to use the BUF offensive and defensive playbooks. This will add a little twist - take a bite out of the sub player - they are an interim coach who is in over his head a little. It would force the sub players to expand their game a little too - keep it interesting.....

I kinda like that idea. Would still give the other guy the 'slight advantage' over the sub

sam22smith wrote:I have restarted a CPU game one time - it's because I picked the wrong PB - I wanted to try a new one and I forgot. And I had CJ jr go down with a broken collar bone for 9 weeks in Greenerr1 in my first ever CPU game.

Anyways - I do it right - i don't skirt injuries but I would still rather play and lose to a player than pound the CPU.

But - I believe a cool clause of the sub player is that they should be forced to use the team offensive and defensive playbook. So if you are playing with the Bills - you need to use the BUF offensive and defensive playbooks. This will add a little twist - take a bite out of the sub player - they are an interim coach who is in over his head a little. It would force the sub players to expand their game a little too - keep it interesting.....

u are still forcing players who never restart CPU games at all to face a higher quality of opponent (even with a new playbook and MG player would be more skilled than the CPU)...- These players have respect the idea of a CPU game - they never restart CPU games - let them continue with how they have been playing - and if they have an inadvertain DC - they will have to live with SIM result....

But on the other hand if u prefer to play the SUB player changing the playbook is only going to make a negligible decrease on a "good" player ability - but it all helps and that small concsession should be made...

GREENERRRR wrote:its better idea than just forcing some1 to play a SUB straight up...

BUT...

u are still forcing players who never restart CPU games at all to face a higher quality of opponent (even with a new playbook and MG player would be more skilled than the CPU)...- These players have respect the idea of a CPU game - they never restart CPU games - let them continue with how they have been playing - and if they have an inadvertain DC - they will have to live with SIM result....

But on the other hand if u prefer to play the SUB player changing the playbook is only going to make a negligible decrease on a "good" player ability - but it all helps and that small concsession should be made...

Greener... Its not forcing anyone anything.... the person who was getting a CPU game 50% of the time is because they can't connect on scheduling... the other 50% is because something came up. They were never scheduled for a CPU game, so the Sub (with a team playbook...I like that idea), is absolutely equal.

CPU Games are gay plain and simple. Nobody wants to play them, and the ones that do, tend to run up the score and pad stats... or they don't even play the game, they supersim til they win... so whats the point.

Substitutes eliminate all of that. You don't have to waste a game on a SuperSim, or CPU.

What are you so dead set on keeping CPU games around? It doesn't make any sense...we should be looking or alternates to CPU games at every juncture. I'm one that plays his CPU games, and whatever the result, thats the result.... but I'd rather play a live person 100% of the time.

GREENERRRR wrote:its better idea than just forcing some1 to play a SUB straight up...

BUT...

u are still forcing players who never restart CPU games at all to face a higher quality of opponent (even with a new playbook and MG player would be more skilled than the CPU)...- These players have respect the idea of a CPU game - they never restart CPU games - let them continue with how they have been playing - and if they have an inadvertain DC - they will have to live with SIM result....

But on the other hand if u prefer to play the SUB player changing the playbook is only going to make a negligible decrease on a "good" player ability - but it all helps and that small concsession should be made...

Greener... Its not forcing anyone anything.... the person who was getting a CPU game 50% of the time is because they can't connect on scheduling... the other 50% is because something came up. They were never scheduled for a CPU game, so the Sub (with a team playbook...I like that idea), is absolutely equal.

CPU Games are gay plain and simple. Nobody wants to play them, and the ones that do, tend to run up the score and pad stats... or they don't even play the game, they supersim til they win... so whats the point.

Substitutes eliminate all of that. You don't have to waste a game on a SuperSim, or CPU.

What are you so dead set on keeping CPU games around? It doesn't make any sense...we should be looking or alternates to CPU games at every juncture. I'm one that plays his CPU games, and whatever the result, thats the result.... but I'd rather play a live person 100% of the time.

i am not "dead set againt the SUB idea" - i already agreed to the compromise phanton suggested... My view is that there is no system that guarantees that the quality of opponent would equal the CPU - and i would be pissed if i lost a game to a SUB because my goof ball opponent wasnt around - and why should my opponent have any chance to win the game when he doesnt even have the ability to be around to play me in the first place? he is the person who is not available to play and he unequivically deserves the loss...

and why am i against this? because nobody gets a CPU game when they play me - i play all my games - every time - if i am playing a CPU game its because my opponent was not around - i am the easist guy to get a game in with - why should i even have the possibility of playn a higher quality opponent in a game where my opponent was not available to play??? I have respected my injuries in CPU games... I have never screwed around in that regard either...

let me ask you this - IF YOUR GOAL IS TO AVOID BOGUS RESTARTS OF CPU GAMES - why wouldnt you go for phantom shark compromise? It acheives this unequivically!!!! If u play the CPU and for any reason do not finish the game - U HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SIM RESULT... iF you prefer to play a SUB player or your PS3 is "known" to have inadvertain DCs in CPU games, than u play the SUB player - the end result is no CPU games!!!! The players who have been respecting the CPU game injuries get to continue to respect the CPU game injuries... Guys who would prefer to play a SUB over the CPU this compromise accomodates them... the guys who are worried that their system may boot them in a CPU game can play a SUB player and not have to worry about an inadvertain drop... and if you are a chzball that restarts CPU game because of injuries you will have to suck up the result of a SIM game which could easily result in a loss or furthur injuries to your players - every way you could look at this - this compromise solution has a reasonable answer... Why are u so dead set againt a compromise? why does it have to be your way?

My view is that there is no system that guarantees that the quality of opponent would equal the CPU

This is the fundamental difference we had. We shouldn't be trying to equal the CPU, but instead trying to come as close as possible to equaling the quality of the opponent they were to face.

CPU = almost automatic win. There is none of that in the NFL. Which is why Subs, being forced to play with the teams playbook makes sense. In the NFL, an interim head coach would be appointed....

and why should my opponent have any chance to win the game when he doesnt even have the ability to be around to play me in the first place?

Again, you assume that all CPU games are because someone can't make a game. As an example, I offered Kight a CPU game just this week in his lg because we have conflicting schedules. we're both available to play, just at different times. CPU games aren't always because someone can't play, but often because people have conflicting schedules..... Hell I've gotten CPU games for that reason, and I've given them away for the same....

The point is to eliminate CPU games altogether, so no teams get a free win. The good guys will lose the occasional game, and the bad guys will win an occasional game. We all agree that CPU games are almost always a win.....and it shouldn't be that way. Again, it comes down to playing human players as much as possible. Any form of CPU game eliminates that possibility. And, for instance in my example with Kight this week.... who would get the automatic win? Who would be entitled to the CPU game? We are both available, just not at the same time.... Subs solves that problem immediately. The CPU game does not.

You have to stop assuming all CPU games are because people can't play their games.... I'd argue that a lot of CPU games are because people just can't schedule a time that both players are available. I've had those kind of CPU games a helluva lot more than because my opponent could maket the game.

I'm against your "compromise" because its not a compromise.... The entire post is for eliminating CPU games altogether... lol. The compromise you are suggesting, involves having a CPU game....which defeats the purpose entirely. The real compromise is using sub players, and restricting them to the teams playbook (buffalo plays with buffalo pb ...etc).

i disagree completely - majority of CPU games in my LG are because guys are gone away for 32+ hours - no scheduling conflict at all... Hell i just had 3 solid members who were away at work for a weeks time!!!!

the way u want to do things the guys who is away for 32+ hours and is not available has a solid chance at a win when he clearly doesnt deserve any chance at a win... There is no way any of the guys who are away for a week would even think that should have a chance at a win a game that they are away for...

i can tell you whats going to happen - u wont compromise - and others are not gonna compromise - and we will continue to get zero done when we both agree that somethiung nneds to be changed - rather pathetic when u think about it,,,

GREENERRRR wrote:i disagree completely - majority of CPU games in my LG are because guys are gone away for 32+ hours - no scheduling conflict at all... Hell i just had 3 solid members who were away at work for a weeks time!!!!

the way u want to do things the guys who is away for 32+ hours and is not available has a solid chance at a win when he clearly doesnt deserve any chance at a win... There is no way any of the guys who are away for a week would even think that should have a chance at a win...

No offense to you intended here.... so please don't take it that way.But your leagues are not exactly a microcosm of the MG in general... Aren't your leagues more recruitment leagues than anything? New guys to learn the new ways? It would make sense you have a higher absent/drop out rate than the DWs, Chz, Surfs and Kights....

And it doesn't matter if I compromise or not....I'm not on the GC... I don't have a vote.I'm more a lobbyist.And on this matter, I think I have the votes

ok i havent said to much about this but i mean come on.. i like phantom comprise as well.. i mean how can u go from playing an guy that u think or u know u can beat to playing people like JMO, CP, FF.. and with those guys it dont matter who they play with or what playbook they use.. they know the game of madden.. thats why alot of people go to the these guys wanting to lab with them.... so i think an comprise is fair.... and u can say yeah it will be random.. that still dont matter.. there are still guys everyone knows they cant beat but maybe 1 out of 10 times playing them... or guys they just dont want to play bc they are cheese balls or people they hate playing bc of the way they play the gm of madden... and an cpu gm actually helps me like pratice mode does to mess with some plays and works some things out...

i would rather take the sim and have an 50/50 shot of winning the gm then to play someone i know i cant beat but 1 out of 10 times... or to play an guy who i hate playing bc of the way they play the gm... just my thought...

saastar wrote:ok i havent said to much about this but i mean come on.. i like phantom comprise as well.. i mean how can u go from playing an guy that u think or u know u can beat to playing people like JMO, CP, FF.. and with those guys it dont matter who they play with or what playbook they use.. they know the game of madden.. thats why alot of people go to the these guys wanting to lab with them.... so i think an comprise is fair.... and u can say yeah it will be random.. that still dont matter.. there are still guys everyone knows they cant beat but maybe 1 out of 10 times playing them... or guys they just dont want to play bc they are cheese balls or people they hate playing bc of the way they play the gm of madden... and an cpu gm actually helps me like pratice mode does to mess with some plays and works some things out...

i would rather take the sim and have an 50/50 shot of winning the gm then to play someone i know i cant beat but 1 out of 10 times... or to play an guy who i hate playing bc of the way they play the gm... just my thought...

And what if you are scheduled to play one of them, and instead you have to face me? God knows I'll be a ready and willing substitute.... and I'm a walk over win for most of you.... The point is, the CPU game is considered (even for me) a guaranteed win.... and it shouldn't be. And people shouldn't have the sense of entitlement that it is indeed a guaranteed win.

I can't figure out why people are scared to play Subs.....there are a lot more AVERAGE guys in the league, than there are good guys.... wtf are you all scared of?

its not being scared of anything.. its the point of being entitled to whats urs... here is an example...

im in kight lg and it advanced to new week on monday at 1am.. i sent an friend invite and message to my opponent ishitonPPL saying when can u play our kight... and i got on this afternoon and he had not accepted my friend request or sent message back.. i sent message to mjkight and sent another message to my opponent.. i got on 2nite around 1030pm est.. he was on and accepted my invite but no message back.. i send him 2 more messages while he was on and never got 1 message back while he was on and got off line at midnite... i checked the lg for his contact info and he has none.. so under new rule 2morrow he would get booted and i have to play an sub after trying almost 2 days to get ahold of my opponent.. instead of getting an cpu gm.. in which if i get disconnected i would result in my gm being simmed with the comprise.. which i would agree with and that would be fair.. not have someone i dislike playing or someone like cp, jmo or have to play FF for the 9th time..(which i always enjoy playing ff i just have never been close to beating him).. and then taking an lose for my opponent not responding.. and when im trying to keep up for an playoff spot...

GREENERRRR wrote:i disagree completely - majority of CPU games in my LG are because guys are gone away for 32+ hours - no scheduling conflict at all... Hell i just had 3 solid members who were away at work for a weeks time!!!!

the way u want to do things the guys who is away for 32+ hours and is not available has a solid chance at a win when he clearly doesnt deserve any chance at a win... There is no way any of the guys who are away for a week would even think that should have a chance at a win...

No offense to you intended here.... so please don't take it that way.But your leagues are not exactly a microcosm of the MG in general... Aren't your leagues more recruitment leagues than anything? New guys to learn the new ways? It would make sense you have a higher absent/drop out rate than the DWs, Chz, Surfs and Kights....

And it doesn't matter if I compromise or not....I'm not on the GC... I don't have a vote.I'm more a lobbyist.And on this matter, I think I have the votes

you know what- when some1 says - dont take offense - u know dam well thats just the oppisite is coming...

and my LG and the needs of my players are just as important as any other LG - in fact i will compare my particpation rates with any LG in the madden group... My guys play their games - it may take 3 days as oppose to 2 days but the games get done... Mylg is always at capacity or close to it and for the record - u wouldnt have had a place to play right noiw if it wasnt for my LGs because vista would have folded and i was the person who recommended you to dw for membership - so a lil respect to the LG that gives you the opportunity for you to play in this group is warranted...

and just because players in my LG are new (where i recruited 3 from the MLBTSG btw) - doesnt mean that i am going to put thier needs 2nd... on the contrary - i am going to step up for their needs even more because they havent established themselves in the Mg and may feel intimidated to voice theri opinions as a new member.... so you can take the cotemptuous attitude and shove it straight up your ass!

What kills me is how everyone calls the cpu games instant wins. I find it very difficult to beat the cpu on ALL-MADDEN mode. I much prefer to play a human whether they bash my brains in or not because I like the opportunity to learn something by matching wits with a live opponent. I like the sub idea and would be on this sub list.

and my LG and the needs of my players are just as important as any other LG - in fact i will compare my particpation rates with any LG in the madden group... My guys play their games - it may take 3 days as oppose to 2 days but the games get done... Mylg is always at capacity or close to it and for the record - u wouldnt have had a place to play right noiw if it wasnt for my LGs because vista would have folded and i was the person who recommended you to dw for membership - so a lil respect to the LG that gives you the opportunity for you to play in this group is warranted...

and just because players in my LG are new (where i recruited 3 from the MLBTSG btw) - doesnt mean that i am going to put thier needs 2nd... on the contrary - i am going to step up for their needs even more because they havent established themselves in the Mg and may feel intimidated to voice theri opinions as a new member.... so you can take the cotemptuous attitude and shove it straight up your ass!

Well, apparently you can't read because I said "don't take it that way". As truthfully, I wasn't intending any offense towards you.You freely admit your league is full of new recruits learning their way.... Which is exactly what I said in my post. So why you were offended I have no idea.

GREENERRRR wrote:why should i play some1 other than the player i was schedule to play? are they gonna be the same skill level?

I dont jerk around restartn CPU games... I play my game - and take my injuries...

Perhaps - u could make this idea work by you get 1 chance to play the CPU game - but any start after the 1st has to be played vs a substitute player - i could live with that - because it wouldnt effect me - it only would effect guys who gratuitously restart CPU games because they get an injury...

Agreed, it's not fair if I have to play one of the best players because he's substituting for a player who is struggling.

GREENERRRR wrote:why should i play some1 other than the player i was schedule to play? are they gonna be the same skill level?

I dont jerk around restartn CPU games... I play my game - and take my injuries...

Perhaps - u could make this idea work by you get 1 chance to play the CPU game - but any start after the 1st has to be played vs a substitute player - i could live with that - because it wouldnt effect me - it only would effect guys who gratuitously restart CPU games because they get an injury...

Agreed, it's not fair if I have to play one of the best players because he's substituting for a player who is struggling.

Who says you are going to play one of the best players? Maybe you are scheduled for one of the best players, and instead have to play one of the worst players? Its a two way street. Hell there are a lot more average-worst players than there are FF, CP's, and Jmo's walking around.... and those guys might not even be Subs.

Maybe you make it so they can't be subs? Would that make you feel better?